The Rank and Status of Military Refugees in the Mamluk Army

27 Pages·2012·0.25 MB·English

by  Nakamachi Nobutaka

N N
AKAMACHI OBUTAKA
W U
ASEDA NIVERSITY
The Rank and Status of Military Refugees in the Mamluk Army:
A Reconsideration of the Wa≠fid|yah
The existence of military refugees from Mongol territory during the Bahri Mamluk
period was of great importance for the history of the Mamluk Sultanate politically,
diplomatically, and culturally. David Ayalon studied this group over fifty years
ago in his article "The Wafidiya in the Mamluk Kingdom"1 and his theory has
been widely accepted, together with his term wa≠fid|yah, an Arabic "collective
formation from wa≠fid 'one who comes, makes his way, in a delegation or group.'"2
In his study, he criticizes A. N. Poliak, who stated that the wa≠fid|yah enjoyed high
positions in the Mamluk army because of the vassal character of the Mamluks'
relationship to the Golden Horde.3 Rather, Ayalon claims, the wa≠fid|yah were
constantly discriminated against in the Mamluk military system throughout the
Mamluk period because they were not mamluks, i.e., of slave origin.
In the view of the present author, however, his study is too narrow. First, he
connects the arrival of the wa≠fid|yah only to the political situation inside the
Mamluk Sultanate, and neglects the situation outside it. For example, he
characterizes al-Za˛ h≠ ir Baybars and al-‘Ad± il Kitbugha,≠ the two sultans who received
the largest and second largest number of Mongol immigrants, according to his
counting, as "an admirer of the Mongol regime" and "a member of that ethnic
group" respectively, as if these factors caused these immigrations. The wa≠fid|yah's
influx, however, must not have had much to do with the reigning sultans; rather, it
was caused by internal factors within the Ilkhanid state. Second, Ayalon states
that the wa≠fid|yah's inferior status is proved by the fact that most of them joined
the h˝alqah unit.4 Yet, in another place, he points out the prominent position of the
h˝alqah in the early Mamluk period.5 These two claims seem contradictory. Third,
his survey tends to look at the wa≠fid|yah as a unit, so he fails to grasp their
diversity. We must differentiate their commanders from their soldiers, the Mongol
.© Middle East Documentation Center. The University of Chicago.
1David Ayalon, "The Wafidiya in the Mamluk Kingdom," Studia Islamica 25 (1951): 89–104.
2David Ayalon, "Wa≠fidiyya," The Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed., 12:26–27.
3A. N. Poliak, "Le caractère colonial de l'Etat Mameluk dans ses rapports avec la Horde d'Or,"
Revue des études islamiques 9 (1935): 213–48.
4Ayalon, "Wafidiya," 90–91.
5David Ayalon, "Studies on the Structure of the Mamluk Army," pt. 2, Bulletin of the School of
Oriental and African Studies 15 (1953): 448–51. And see later section of the present article.
Article: http://mamluk.uchicago.edu/MSR_X-1_2006-Nakamachi-Nobutaka.pdf
Full volume: http://mamluk.uchicago.edu/MamlukStudiesReview_X-1_2006.pdf
©2006 by the author. (Disregard notice of MEDOC copyright.) This work is made available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International license (CC-BY). Mamlūk Studies Review is an Open Access journal. See http://mamluk.uchicago.edu/msr.html for information.
56 NAKAMACHI NOBUTAKA, A RECONSIDERATION OF THE WA≠FID|YAH
tribesmen from indigenous groups within Mongol-ruled territory, and groups who
came in the early Mamluk period from groups who came in relatively later periods.
All of these problems resulted from the lack of adequate published sources in
Ayalon's time. In the present day, because research in Mamluk historiography has
progressed and more Arabic sources have been published, we have access to more
thirteenth- and fourteenth-century contemporary sources. The present state of
research "simply demands that this part of his work be redone."6
A M R
RRIVALOFTHE ILITARY EFUGEES
WHO WERE THE WA≠FIDIYAH?: IBN SHADDA≠D'S CATEGORIZATION
Actually, the term wa≠fid|yah is not found frequently in the contemporary sources,
and though there are references to a wa≠fid|yah in the Mamluk army, the designation
must have been temporary and indefinite. Ayalon uses this word in the extremely
wide meaning of "immigrants, those coming from outside" and includes not only
al-Khwa≠rizm|yah and the Kurdish Shahrazu≠r|yah, who came before the Mongols,
but also Frankish and Maghribi refugees, and even those who came from the
Ottoman state. On the other hand, later scholars use this term in a narrower sense,
as "individuals and groups of tribesmen who fled to the Sultanate from Mongol
controlled territory."7 We shall also follow the latter definition in this study.
Accordingly, this study generally limits itself to the period from the formation of
the Mongol state in Iran until its end, i.e., from 1258 to 1335.
But before we proceed to the main subject, we must make clearer who the
wa≠fid|yah were by referring to a contemporary account. ‘Izz al-D|n Ibn Shadda≠d,
the author of Sultan Baybars' biography, Ta≠r|kh al-Malik al-Z˛a≠hir, lists the names
of 201 refugees who entered the sultanate during his reign in a section titled
"Those who came to him" (man wafada ‘alayhi). He classifies them into the
following groups:8 (a) those from Medina and Yanbu‘ (19 persons); (b) those
from al-‘Ira≠q (21 persons); (c) those from al-Maws˝il (17 persons); (d) amirs of
al-‘Arab and al-Turkuma≠n (46 persons); (e) Muslims who were displaced by the
Mongols (al-Tata≠r) (21 persons); (f) those from Bila≠d al-Ru≠m (35 persons); (g)
6R. Stephen Humphreys, Islamic History: A Framework for Inquiry, rev. ed. (London, 1995),
182. For the historiography of the first part of the Mamluk period, see Donald P. Little, An
Introduction to Mamluk≠ Historiography: An Analysis of Arabic Annalitic and Biographical Sources
for the Reign of al-Malik an-Na≠s˝ir Muh˝ammad ibn Qala≠’u≠n (Wiesbaden, 1970). About the recent
situation of the publication of Mamluk sources, see Li Guo, "Mamluk Historiographic Studies:
The State of the Art," Mamlu≠k Studies Review 1 (1997): 15–43.
7Reuven Amitai, "The Remaking of the Military Elite of Mamluk Egypt by al-Na≠s˝ir Muh˝ammad
b. Qala≠wu≠n," Studia Islamica 72 (1990): 149, n. 17.
8See also Peter M. Holt, "Three Biographies of al-Z˛a≠hir Baybars," in Medieval Historical Writing
in the Christian and Islamic World, ed. David O. Morgan (London, 1982), 24–26.
Article: http://mamluk.uchicago.edu/MSR_X-1_2006-Nakamachi-Nobutaka.pdf
Full volume: http://mamluk.uchicago.edu/MamlukStudiesReview_X-1_2006.pdf
MAMLU±K STUDIES REVIEW VOL. 10, NO. 1, 2006 57
Mongols (40 persons); (h) those from Ma≠rid|n (1 person); and (i) notables of the
Franks (2 persons).9
Among these, groups (a) and (d) should be excluded from this study, because
they came to the sultanate and then returned to their country; they never became
regular members of the Mamluk army.10 All the refugees of groups (e) and (h) and
a part of those of (c) were Ayyubid princes in Syria and Saljuqid ata≠baks.11
Therefore they did not come from "Mongol-controlled territory" any more than
group (i), the Frankish refugees. The other three groups, which can be regarded as
wa≠fid|yah for this study, represent three types of wa≠fid|yah during Baybars' reign:
indigenous soldiers who came from areas newly occupied by the Mongols (b),
subordinates of the Ru≠m Saljuqs (f), and Mongol tribal units (g).
CHRONOLOGY OF THE WA≠FID|YAH'S DEFECTIONS
Other contemporary sources do not indicate when or under what circumstances all
those listed by Ibn Shadda≠d arrived in the Mamluk Sultanate. This shows that the
sources do not transmit all the information about the wa≠fid|yah. Still, we have
twenty-four examples during the period covered in the present article of groups of
refugees whose arrival times are known. The following list shows the arrival year
of these groups, their leaders' names, and the size of the group.
(1) 660/1262 Shams al-D|n Sala≠r al-Mustans˝ir|, a ruler of al-‘Ira≠q
300 horsemen12
(2) 660/1262 S˛aragha≠n A±gha≠, a commander of the Golden Horde
200 horsemen13
9Ibn Shadda≠d, Ta≠r|kh al-Malik al-Z˛a≠hir (Wiesbaden, 1983), 329–38.
10See Richard T. Mortel, "The H˛usaynid Amirate of Mad|na during the Mamluk Period," Studia
Islamica 80 (1995): 97–110. Strangely, Ibn Shadda≠d does not mention the sharifate of Mecca here.
For the relationship between the Meccan sharifate and the Mamluk Sultanate, see Ota Keiko, "The
Meccan Sharifate and its Diplomatic Relations in the Bahri Mamluk Period," Annals of Japan
Association for Middle East Studies 17, no. 1 (2002): 1–20. For the relationship between the Arabs
and the Mamluk Sultanate, see M. A. Hiyari, "The Origins and Development of the Amirate of the
Arabs during the Seventh/Thirteenth and Eighth/Fourteenth Centuries," Bulletin of the School of
Oriental and African Studies 38 (1975): 509–24.
11Sato Tsugitaka, State and Rural Society in Medieval Islam: Sultans, Muqta‘s and Fallahun
(Leiden, 1997), 78.
12Ibn ‘Abd al-Za˛ h≠ ir, Al-Rawd ˝al-Zah≠ ir f| S|rat al-Malik al-Za˛ h≠ ir (Riyadh, 1976), 123–24; al-Nuwayr|,
Nihay≠ at al-Arab f| Funun≠ al-Adab (Cairo, 1923–98), 30:54–55; al-Maqr|z|, Kitab≠ al-Suluk≠ li-Ma‘rifat
al-Mulu≠k (Cairo,1939–72), 1:476; al-‘Ayn|, ‘Iqd al-Juman≠ f| Tar≠ |kh Ahl al-Zaman≠ (Cairo, 1987–92),
1:333.
13Abu≠ Sha≠mah, Tara≠jim Rija≠l al-Qarnayn al-Sa≠dis wa-al-Sa≠bi‘ (Cairo, 1947), 220; Ibn ‘Abd
al-Z˛a≠hir, Rawd˝, 137–38; al-Yu≠n|n|, Dhayl Mir’a≠t al-Zama≠n f| Ta≠r|kh al-A‘ya≠n (Hyderabad,
Article: http://mamluk.uchicago.edu/MSR_X-1_2006-Nakamachi-Nobutaka.pdf
Full volume: http://mamluk.uchicago.edu/MamlukStudiesReview_X-1_2006.pdf
58 NAKAMACHI NOBUTAKA, A RECONSIDERATION OF THE WA≠FID|YAH
(3) 661/1263 Karmu≠n A±gha≠, a commander of the Golden Horde
over 1300 horsemen14
(4) 662/1264 Sayf al-D|n Baklak, a ruler of Sh|ra≠z
a large number (jama≠‘ah kab|rah)15
(5) 662/1264 Jala≠l al-D|n Bashkar ibn Dawa≠da≠r, a vassal of the Abbasids
a large number16
(6) 672/1273–74 Shams al-D|n Baha≠dur, a ruler of Sumays˝a≠t1¸¸7
not specified
(7) 675/1277 Hu˛ sam≠ al-D|n B|jar≠ , a vassal of the Rum≠ Saljuqs, and several
others18
not specified
(8) 681/1282 Mu’min A±gha≠, a ruler of Maws˝il
not specified, but a small number19
(9) 681/1282–83 Sina≠n al-D|n al-Ru≠m|, a son of a ruler of Amasia20
not specified
(10) 681/1283 Shaykh ‘Al|, a Sufi shaykh
several Mongols21
(11) 683/1284 no specific names
4000 horsemen22
1954–61), 1:496, 2:156; Mufad˝d˝al ibn Ab| al-Fad˝a≠’il, Al-Nahj al-Sad|d wa-al-Durr al-Far|d f|ma≠
ba‘da Tar≠ |kh Ibn al-‘Am|d, in "Histoire des sultans mamlouks," ed. E. Blochet, Patrologia Orientalis
12, 14, 20 (1919–28), 1:442; al-Nuwayr|, Niha≠yah, 30:64; Ibn al-Dawad≠ ar≠|, Kanz al-Durar wa-Jam≠ i‘
al-Ghurar (Cairo, 1960–92), 8:90.
14Ibn ‘Abd al-Z˛a≠hir, Rawd˝, 177–80; Baybars al-Mans˝u≠r|, Zubdat al-Fikrah f| Ta≠r|kh al-Hijrah
(Beirut, 1998), 101; idem, Al-Tuh˝fah al-Mulu≠k|yah f| al-Dawlah al-Turk|yah (Cairo, 1987), 51;
al-Yu≠n|n|, Dhayl, 1:534; al-Nuwayr|, Niha≠yah, 30:89–90; al-Maqr|z|, Sulu≠k, 1:501; al-‘Ayn|,
‘Iqd, 1:364–65.
15Ibn ‘Abd al-Z˛a≠hir, Rawd˝, 198; Baybars al-Mans˝u≠r|, Zubdah, 105; al-Nuwayr|, Niha≠yah, 30:99.
16Ibn ‘Abd al-Z˛a≠hir, Rawd˝, 203, 209–10; Baybars al-Mans˝u≠r|, Zubdah, 109; al-Nuwayr|, Niha≠yah,
30:111.
17Sha≠fi‘ ibn ‘Al|, H˛usn al-Mana≠qib al-Sirr|yah al-Muntaza‘ah min al-S|rah al-Z˛a≠hir|yah (Riyadh,
1976), 153; Baybars al-Mans˝u≠r|, Zubdah, 131; idem, Tuh˝fah, 78; al-Nuwayr|, Niha≠yah, 30:207–8;
al-Maqr|z|, Sulu≠k, 1:611.
18Ibn ‘Abd al-Z˛a≠hir, Rawd˝, 462; Ibn Shadda≠d, Ta≠r|kh, 153–58, 160, 174–75; al-Yu≠n|n|, Dhayl,
3:164; al-Nuwayr|, Niha≠yah, 30:233; Mufadd˝ a˝ l, Nahj, 2:403–6; al-Maqr|z|, Sulu≠k, 1:621; al-‘Ayn|,
‘Iqd, 2:153–54.
19Baybars al-Mans˝u≠r|, Zubdah, 196, 199.
20Ibid., 216.
21Ibid., 217; al-Nuwayr|, Niha≠yah, 31:88; al-Maqr|z|, Sulu≠k, 1:708–9; Ibn Taghr|bird|, Al-Nuju≠m
al-Za≠hirah f| Mulu≠k Mis˝r wa-al-Qa≠hirah (Cairo, 1929–49), 9:15.
22Ibn ‘Abd al-Z˛a≠hir, Tashr|f al-Ayya≠m wa-al-‘Us˝u≠r f| S|rat al-Malik al-Mans˝u≠r (Cairo, 1961), 68;
Article: http://mamluk.uchicago.edu/MSR_X-1_2006-Nakamachi-Nobutaka.pdf
Full volume: http://mamluk.uchicago.edu/MamlukStudiesReview_X-1_2006.pdf
MAMLU±K STUDIES REVIEW VOL. 10, NO. 1, 2006 59
(12) 695/1296 T˛aragha≠y, the commander of the Oirat tribe
10,000–18,000 households23
(13) 698/1299 Sula≠mish, a lieutenant from al-Ru≠m
500 horsemen24
(14) 703/1304 Badr al-D|n Jankal| ibn al-Ba≠ba≠, a ruler of Ra’s al-‘Ayn
11 persons25
(15) 704/1304 Four sila≠h˝da≠r|yahs of Gha≠za≠n
200 horsemen with their families26
(16) 705/1305–6 Sayf al-D|n H˛anna≠ and Fakhr al-D|n Da≠wu≠d, brothers of
Amir Sala≠r27
not specified
(17) 717/1317 T˛a≠t¸|, a commander of one thousand of the Mongols
100 horsemen with their families28
(18) 722/1322 Ah˝mad, a son of an aunt of the sultan29
not specified
(19) 724/1323–24 H˛asan, a relative of the sultan30
not specified
(20) 726/1326 T˛a≠yirbugha≠, a relative of the sultan31
not specified
Baybars al-Mans˝u≠r|, Zubdah, 240.
23Baybars al-Mans˝u≠r|, Zubdah, 291–92; idem, Tuh˝fah, 146; Abu≠ al-Fida≠’, Mukhtas˝ar f| Akhba≠r
al-Bashar (Cairo, 1907), 4:34–35; Ibn al-Dawa≠da≠r|, Kanz, 8:361–62; al-Nuwayr|, Niha≠yah,
31:296–99; al-Jazar|, Ta≠r|kh H˛awa≠dith al-Zama≠n wa-Anba≠’ihi wa-Wafaya≠t al-Aka≠bir wa-al-A‘ya≠n
min Abna’≠ ihi (Sidon and Beirut, 1998), 1:286–88; Mufadd˝ a˝ l, Nahj, 2:590–93; Ibn Kath|r, Al-Bida≠yah
wa-al-Niha≠yah f| Ta≠r|kh (Cairo, 1932–39), 13:363; al-‘Ayn|, ‘Iqd, 3:278–79, 3:304–7, 311.
24Baybars al-Mans˝u≠r|, Zubdah, 302–3; al-Nuwayr|, Niha≠yah, 31:373–75; al-Yu≠n|n|, Dhayl, in
Early Mamluk Syrian Historiography: al-Yu≠n|n|'s Dhayl Mir’a≠t al-Zama≠n, ed. Li Guo (Leiden,
1998), 64–65; Mufad˝d˝al, Nahj, 2:623–28; al-Maqr|z|, Sulu≠k, 1:876.
25Baybars al-Mans˝u≠r|, Tuh˝fah, 175; Ibn al-Dawa≠da≠r|, Kanz, 9:113; Mufad˝d˝al, Nahj, 3:97–99; Ibn
Kath|r, Bida≠yah, 14:31; al-‘Ayn|, ‘Iqd, 4:303–4; al-Maqr|z|, Sulu≠k, 2:950; idem, Al-Mawa≠‘iz˝
wa-al-I‘tiba≠r bi-Dhikr al-Khit¸at¸ wa-al-A±tha≠r (Bu≠laq≠ , 1270 A.H.)¸, 2:134.
26Al-Nuwayr|, Niha≠yah, 32:86.
27Ibid., 96.
28Ibid., 254; al-‘Ayn|, "‘Iqd al-Juma≠n f| Ta≠r|kh Ahl al-Zama≠n," Istanbul, Bayazit MS Veliyyüddin
2394, fol. 112. For the manuscripts of al-‘Ayn|'s chronicles, see Nakamachi Nobutaka, "Al-‘Ayn|'s
Chronicles as a Source for the Bah˝r| Mamluk Period," Orient 40 (2005): 140–71.
29Al-‘Ayn|, "‘Iqd," MS Veliyyüddin 2394, fol. 316.
30Ibid., fol. 472.
31Al-Nuwayr|, Niha≠yah, 33:203; al-‘Ayn|, "‘Iqd al-Juma≠n f| Ta≠r|kh Ahl al-Zama≠n," Istanbul,
Süleymaniye MS Süleymaniye 835, fols. 48v–49v.
Article: http://mamluk.uchicago.edu/MSR_X-1_2006-Nakamachi-Nobutaka.pdf
Full volume: http://mamluk.uchicago.edu/MamlukStudiesReview_X-1_2006.pdf
60 NAKAMACHI NOBUTAKA, A RECONSIDERATION OF THE WA≠FID|YAH
(21) 727/1327 Muh˝ammad B|h ibn Jamaq, a relative of the sultan32
not specified
(22) 728/1328 Tamurta≠sh, a lieutenant from al-Ru≠m
300–600 horsemen33
(23) 738/1337 Najm al-D|n Mah˝mu≠d ibn Sharw|n, an official of Baghdad
500 persons34
(24) 738/1337 Nas≠ i˝ r al-D|n Khal|fah ibn ‘Al| Shah≠ , an official of Baghdad35
not specified
During Baybars' reign, four groups were indigenous groups from Mongol-occupied
areas (nos. 1, 4–6), one group came from the Ru≠m Saljuqs (no. 7), and two groups
were Mongol tribesmen (nos. 2–3). Ibn Shadda≠d calculates the wa≠fid|yah from the
Mongol tribesmen to have numbered about three thousand horsemen, while the
chronicles state that there were two groups, of 200 and 1,300 men, respectively.
These two groups, which some historians count more accurately as three groups,36
are often combined as a single group under sixteen commanders in the sources.37
It is noteworthy that in all cases these defections of the Mongol wa≠fid|yah were
unexpected events for the Mamluk Sultanate; we can find no evidence that the
Mamluks enticed them to immigrate. On the other hand, some of the indigenous
wa≠fid|yah from areas newly occupied by the Mongols had had connections with
the Mamluk Sultanate, and Baybars seems to have pursued a "head-hunting" policy
toward them.38 The defections of the Rum≠ Saljuq wa≠fid|yah, whose arrivals spanned
a long term, were caused by Baybars' military campaign against al-Ru≠m.
Although a large number of refugees arrived during the reign of Baybars, the
32Al-Nuwayr|, Niha≠yah, 33:231–232; al-‘Ayn|, "‘Iqd,"MS Süleymaniye 835, fol. 72r.
33Abu≠ al-Fida≠’, Mukhtas˝ar, 4:98; al-Yu≠n|n|, Dhayl, in Guo, Early Mamluk Syrian Historiography,
63–66; Ibn al-Dawa≠da≠r|, Kanz, 9:346–48; Mufad˝d˝al, Nahj, in Ägypten und Syrien zwischen 1317
und 1341 in der Chronik des Mufad˝d˝al b. Ab|’l-Fad˝a≠’il, ed. Samira Kortantamer (Freiburg, 1973),
39–40; Ibn Kath|r, Bida≠yah, 14:138, 140; al-Maqr|z|, Sulu≠k, 2:346–48; al-‘Ayn|, "‘Iqd," MS
Süleymaniye 835, fol. 88r ff.
34Al-Shuja‘≠ |, Tar≠ |kh al-Malik al-Nas≠ i˝r Muha˝ mmad ibn Qalaw≠ un≠ al-Sa˛ l≠ihi˝ wa-Awlad≠ ihi (Wiesbaden,
1985), 17–18; al-Maqr|z|, Sulu≠k, 2:437–38; al-‘Ayn|, "‘Iqd al-Juma≠n f| Ta≠r|kh Ahl al-Zama≠n,"
Istanbul, Topkapi Sarayi MS Ahmet III 2911/a17, fol. 113v.
35Al-Shuja≠‘|, Ta≠r|kh, 27; al-Maqr|z|, Sulu≠k, 2:446; al-‘Ayn|, "‘Iqd," MS Ahmet III 2911/a17, fol.
113r.
36For example, al-Yun≠ |n| describes the wa≠fid|yah in 661/1263 as al-ta¸ ’≠ ifah al-than≠ iyah and al-t¸a≠’ifah
al-tha≠lithah; see al-Yu≠n|n|, Dhayl, 1:534, 2:195.
37Baybars al-Mans˝u≠r|, Zubdah, 84–85; al-Maqr|z|, Sulu≠k, 1:501; al-‘Ayn|, ‘Iqd, 1:365.
38For no. 1 see al-Nuwayr|, Niha≠yah, 30:54–55. For no. 4 see Ibn ‘Abd al-Z˛a≠hir, Rawd˝, 182;
al-Nuwayr|, Niha≠yah, 30:90. For no. 5 see ibid., 207–8.
Article: http://mamluk.uchicago.edu/MSR_X-1_2006-Nakamachi-Nobutaka.pdf
Full volume: http://mamluk.uchicago.edu/MamlukStudiesReview_X-1_2006.pdf
MAMLU±K STUDIES REVIEW VOL. 10, NO. 1, 2006 61
role of his policy of encouraging the wa≠fid|yah to immigrate should not be
overestimated. Most of their defections reflected the situation of Mamluk-Mongol
relations in those days rather than Baybars' admiration of the Mongol regime and
military organization.39
Further, even in the post-Baybars period refugees in some number came to the
sultanate continually. In the reign of al-Mans˝u≠r Qala≠wu≠n we find four groups of
refugees (nos. 8–11), one of which consisted of four thousand horsemen, and the
total number of these refugees is larger than the total number in Baybars' reign.
Afterwards, Sultan Kitbugha≠ received the famous Oirat wa≠fid|yah (no. 12), and
al-Mansu˝ r≠ Laj≠ |n accepted a group of refugees led by Sulam≠ ish, a Mongol lieutenant
of al-Ru≠m (no. 13). During al-Na≠s˝ir Muh˝ammad's second reign, three groups
arrived (nos. 14–16). Among these, it is true that the Oirat wa≠fid|yah was "the
greatest wave of Tata≠r horsemen immigrating to the Mamluk kingdom."40 Their
defection itself, however, probably had nothing to do with the fact that Kitbugha≠
was also a Mongol mamluk, contrary to Ayalon's suggestion, since no evidence of
"head-hunting" on Kitbugha≠'s part is found.41
Most of their defections were motivated by disorder upon the deaths of Ilkhan
rulers and purges carried out by the Ilkhans. Mu’min A±gha≠ (no. 8) was suspected
of the murder of the Ilkhan Abagha≠'s brother.42 The wa≠fid|yah in 683/1284 (no.
11) came because of the internal disorder in the Ilkhanid state after Arghu≠n's
enthronement.43 T˛aragha≠y, Sula≠mish, and Jankal| ibn al-Ba≠ba≠ (nos. 12–14) were
escaping the purge instituted by the Ilkhan Gha≠za≠n. Some groups of the wa≠fid|yah
consisted of family members of the Mamluk elite (nos. 16, 18–21), especially the
relatives of the sultans, who arrived around the year 722/1323, in which the
Mamluks and the Mongols came to an agreement on a peace treaty. Tamurta≠sh
(no. 22), who rebelled against the Ilkhan Abu≠ Sa‘|d and defected, had been on
friendly terms with a Mamluk amir, Sayf al-D|n Aytamish.44 But, in spite of their
friendship, Tamurta≠sh was executed by the sultan in conformity with the treaty.
The defections of the last two groups of wa≠fid|yah (nos. 23–24) were caused by
the political disorder after Abu≠ Sa‘|d's death. Khal|fah ibn ‘Al| Sha≠h (no. 24) was
39Ayalon, "Wafidiya," 98.
40Ibid., 99.
41Of course, it is true that Kitbugha≠ favored them after they came to the sultanate, but we must
distinguish the reason for their defection from how the sultan treated them after they arrived.
42Baybars al-Mans˝u≠r|, Zubdah, 213, 215.
43Ibn ‘Abd al-Z˛a≠hir, Tashr|f, 68.
44Al-‘Ayn|, "‘Iqd," MS Süleymaniye 835, fol. 54v. See Donald P. Little, "Note on Aitami£, a
Mongol Mamluk," in Die islamischen Welt zwischen Mittelalter und Neuzeit: Festschrift für Hans
Robert Roemer zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Ulrich Haarmann and Peter Bachmann (Wiesbaden,
1979), 396–97.
Article: http://mamluk.uchicago.edu/MSR_X-1_2006-Nakamachi-Nobutaka.pdf
Full volume: http://mamluk.uchicago.edu/MamlukStudiesReview_X-1_2006.pdf
62 NAKAMACHI NOBUTAKA, A RECONSIDERATION OF THE WA≠FID|YAH
also an associate of a Mamluk amir, Sayf al-D|n Tankiz, and when the Ilkhan Abu≠
Sa‘|d died, Khal|fah first sought refuge with Tankiz.
The wa≠fid|yah defections reviewed here can be characterized as follows: first,
most of them were caused by the internal political situation of the Ilkhanids,
rather than that of the Mamluk Sultanate. Second, especially in the later period,
the wa≠fid|yah often had some connections with the Mamluk elite before their
defections.
S A
TARTING SSIGNMENTS
T H A : A R B
HE IERARCHY OF SSIGNMENTS CCOUNTSFROMTHE EIGNOF AYBARS
Ayalon states in his article that "most of them joined the h˝alqah, whose status . . .
was greatly inferior to that of the Mamluk units."45 This statement has formed the
basis for the idea that the military refugees were a group discriminated against in
the Mamluk Sultanate. In this section we shall see if most of them actually joined
the h˝alqah unit or not.
Here let us refer to Ibn Shadda≠d again. He states that those who sought refuge
from al-Tata≠r during the reign of Baybars were assigned positions as follows:
Among them some were assigned exceptionally to the kha≠s˝s˝ak|yah;
others were assigned to the unit of sila≠h˝da≠r (armor bearers), the
unit of jamda≠r (wardrobe keepers), and the unit of sa≠q| (cupbearers).46
Others were made amirs of t¸ablkha≠nah, others were made amirs
given from ten to twenty cavalrymen, and others were incorporated
into amirs' units.47
In this account, we find a somewhat hierarchical order of treatment of these
newcomers. This can be categorized as follows:
(a) Recruited into the sultan's units: kha≠s˝s˝ak|yah, sila≠h˝da≠r, jamda≠r, and sa≠q|:
All of these units are regarded as consisting of Mamluks.48
(b) Appointed to the rank of amir, i.e., amir of t¸ablkha≠nah or an amir having
45Ayalon, "Wafidiya," 90.
46For translation of the words sila≠h˝da≠r, jamda≠r, and sa≠q|, see William Popper, Egypt and Syria
under the Circassian Sultans 1382–1468 A.D.: Systematic Notes to Ibn Taghrî Birdî's Chronicles
of Egypt (Berkeley, 1955), 95.
47Ibn Shadda≠d, Ta≠r|kh, 337–38. A similar passage can be found in al-Yu≠n|n|, Dhayl, 3:256–57,
and Ayalon cites the latter ("Wafidiya," 98-99). However, the former is more first-hand information.
48For the kha≠s˝s˝ak|yah, see Ayalon, "Studies on the Structure of the Mamluk Army," pt. 1, Bulletin
of the School of Oriental and African Studies 15 (1953): 213–16. But one finds among the
kha≠s˝s˝ak|yah those who were not mamluks. See ibid., 215.
Article: http://mamluk.uchicago.edu/MSR_X-1_2006-Nakamachi-Nobutaka.pdf
Full volume: http://mamluk.uchicago.edu/MamlukStudiesReview_X-1_2006.pdf
MAMLU±K STUDIES REVIEW VOL. 10, NO. 1, 2006 63
from ten to twenty cavalrymen: "Amir of t¸ablkha≠nah," generally translated as
"amir of forty," derives from the word "band" (t¸ablkha≠nah). It is the second highest
rank of amir after "amir of one hundred and commander of one thousand" (am|r
mi’ah wa-muqaddam alf).49
(c) Integrated into the units of various amirs.
(d) Retained in the unit of their original leader: though this group is not
mentioned specifically by Ibn Shadda≠d, its existence is reasonable, given (b).
As far as we can see from this passage, there is no requirement that they join
the h˝alqah units, which Ayalon regards as the main destination of the wa≠fid|yah.
But in another place, Ibn Shadda≠d cites the regulation that non-Mongol wa≠fid|yah
who came from al-‘Ira≠q and other regions join the h˝alqah unit.50 We can thus add
provisionally to the four above-mentioned categories a fifth category:
(e) Assigned to the h˝alqah unit.
In order to consider whether assignments to all five of these categories were
actually made in practice, let us take two examples from events that occurred in
the reign of Baybars.
The first example is Shams al-D|n Sala≠r al-Mustans˝ir|'s group, who arrived in
Egypt in 660/1262 and were the first military refugees in the reign of Baybars (see
no. 1 in list above). According to Ibn Shadda≠d, when Baybars received them, "he
made him [Sala≠r] amir of fifty cavalrymen, took into service one hundred persons
from those who arrived with him, and divided the rest among amirs."51 In this
passage, we find mention of those who were appointed to the rank of amir, i.e.,
Sala≠r himself, those who were assigned to the sultan's own unit, and those who
were divided among amirs' units. Sala≠r's "fifty cavalrymen" meant that he could
retain his own followers within the limit of fifty. Those who were taken "into
service" would have joined either the mamluk unit or the h˝alqah unit, but it is
unclear which they joined in this case. Thus, of Sala≠r's three hundred followers,
one-sixth stayed under their original leader (case d above), one-third joined the
mamluk unit or h˝alqah unit (case a or e), and half were assigned to various amirs'
units (case c).
The next example is the first group of Mongol refugees which came in 660/1262,
one of the leaders of which was Sayf al-D|n S˛aragha≠n A±gha≠ (see no. 2 in above
list). When they arrived at Cairo, Sultan Baybars "made their leaders amirs with
one hundred cavalrymen or less and assigned the rest to his Bah˝r|yah unit and to
his mamluks."52 It is clear that Sa˛ raghan≠ and other anonymous leaders were permitted
49See Ayalon, "Studies on the Structure," pt. 2, 467–71.
50Ibn Shadda≠d, Ta≠r|kh, 331.
51Ibid., 330.
52Ibn ‘Abd al-Z˛a≠hir, Rawd,˝ 138.
Article: http://mamluk.uchicago.edu/MSR_X-1_2006-Nakamachi-Nobutaka.pdf
Full volume: http://mamluk.uchicago.edu/MamlukStudiesReview_X-1_2006.pdf
64 NAKAMACHI NOBUTAKA, A RECONSIDERATION OF THE WA≠FID|YAH
to keep more than one hundred of their followers in total. Since this group consisted
of two hundred cavalrymen,53 we can conclude that more than half of them stayed
in the service of their original leader (case d) and that less than half joined the
mamluk unit (case a).54
These two examples show that the five categories of Ibn Shadda≠d can be
substantiated by fact, even though the difference between (a) and (e) is unclear.
As this categorization applies to the reign of Baybars only, let us examine the
cases of all other wa≠fid|yah we know about in the period under discussion.
THE STARTING RANK OF THE WA≠FID| AMIRS
First, let us investigate the military refugees who were appointed to the rank of
amir in the above category (b). Ibn Shadda≠d ranks this category as second to those
who were recruited into the sultan's unit. But we treat them first here because they
were commanders of the various wa≠fid|yah groups originally. Although some of
the soldiers under them reached the rank of amir during their later careers in the
Mamluk army, we shall treat them in a later section and here look at the starting
rank to which the commanders were appointed on their arrival.
Although Ibn Shadda≠d states that the commanders were made amirs of
t¸ablkha≠nah and "from ten to twenty cavalrymen," Shams al-D|n Salar≠ al-Mustansi˝ r|
was made amir of "fifty cavalrymen," as seen above. The fact that not forty but
fifty cavalrymen were allowed to Sala≠r means in those times there was a lack of
the strict uniformity of rank of later times, i.e., amir of one hundred, amir of forty,
amir of ten. In 672/1273–74, Shams al-D|n Baha≠dur from Sumays˝a≠t¸¸¸ (see no. 6
above) was made amir of twenty cavalrymen, which is also not in accordance
with the normative size of Mamluk amirs' units, as R. Stephen Humphreys has
shown, at least during the reign of Baybars.55
On the other hand, Sayf al-D|n S˛aragha≠n A±gha≠ and other leaders of the first
Mongol refugees in 660/1262 were made "amirs with one hundred cavalrymen or
less," as seen above. If we take this as appointment to the rank of "amir of one
hundred," they can be regarded as having gotten a higher rank than Ibn Shadda≠d's
generalization. On this point, while Ayalon states that "Baybars' reign is also
marked by the absence of a single appointment to the rank of Amir of a Hundred,"56
53Ibid., 137.
54The Bah˝r|yah unit here means the Mamluk unit that Baybars founded, namely al-Bah˝r|yah
al-Z˛a≠hir|yah. See David Ayalon, "Le régiment Bahriya dans l'armée mamelouke,"Revue des études
islamiques 19 (1951): 137.
55R. Stephen Humphreys, "The Emergence of the Mamluk Army," pt. 2, Studia Islamica 46
(1977): 165–66.
56Ayalon, "Wafidiya," 99.
Article: http://mamluk.uchicago.edu/MSR_X-1_2006-Nakamachi-Nobutaka.pdf
Full volume: http://mamluk.uchicago.edu/MamlukStudiesReview_X-1_2006.pdf